They are most certainly to be taken seriously when they talk about whatever their specific field of expertise is. Go back to my example of determining the starting QB for the Cowboys. Would you take these guys opinion of who should start more seriously than the coach, who may not be nearly as smart? Of course not. Their expertise has nothing to do with the subject at hand, a political and ideological choice.
These people got acknowledgments for their contributions in their particular fields, which means they are likely very smart -- but it says absolutely nothing about their ability to determine who should be leading the country. It's like them coming out and saying "fuji apples are the best!". Their opinion means nothing more than that of some miscelaneous idiot, unless they are talking about something that they are experts on.
First, I'm anything but the "far right", and I never said that being smart was something to be ashamed off. Keep spewing that drivel though if it makes you feel better.
Thinking your opinion is more important than that of someone else, and that you are better equipped to make their life decisions for them IS something to be ashamed of. That's called elitism. Being smart / intelligent / educated has nothing to do with being elitist. You can be intelligent/educated/accomplished etc and not be an elitist.
That's not how it's characterized by the far right. Your side has consistently catered to anti-intellectualism and used it to win elections.
I heard Rush just the other day trying to spin all of the conservatives endorsing Obama as something to the effect of "Well, I guess all the smart people are banding together" and trashing anyone who questions Palin as elitist.
You're splitting hairs here. While intellectualism is obvious a different animal from eduction, intellectualism is not a measurable (i.e. debatable) quantity. it's hardly a leap of logic to claim that education and "intellectualism" are correlated, hence my reference to education. i'll gladly cede to you the point that the many rabid liberals "feel that they have a monopoly on truth and good intentions". however, as Descartes (the poster, not the philosopher) said, rabid conservatives are just as likely to claim sole ownership of patriotism and morality.
i feel that you trivialize these scientists by assuming that their accomplishments in one field do not indicate a broader ability to analyze policy (which is largely an objective science) and otherwise make informed choices.
in any case, these physicists, chemists, and biologists are hardly the only nobel laureates to endorse obama. if you can't be convinced that opinions of the best people in the "hard sciences" should be somewhat influential, surely this years' nobel laureate on economics holds a reputable opinion - he endorses Obama.
i'm sure we'll both agree, though, that independent research is the best way to make a presidential pick. that's how i've made my decision.
i'm sure you don't need me to tell you that anecdotes have no bearing on statistics. we might turn out quality engineers, but many other countries turn out quality engineers, and more of them at that. i think the fear of losing an intellectual advantage to other nations is due to the fact that our culture doesn't encouraging the pursuit of hard sciences as intensely as other countries (think China or India). if we're not currently behind China and India in quality engineer production, the tide is certainly turning.
SP33Demon
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,929
- 142
- 106
I'm not sure why you are still comparing a Football coach to a Nobel winner. It's apples to oranges, the Nobel winner will (in many cases) affect the masses. Masses = 75% of people in the world. Football coach doesn't affect anyone directly aside from entertainment value. Hence, I agree that a football coach's opinion is pretty worthless. Someone who has made significant contributions to technology that I use (e.g. nanotech, computers, genetics) on a daily basis is going to have much more influence whether you like it or not. This endorsement by Nobel winners WILL sway votes a helluva lot more than your football coach. Call it elitist, but I'd be willing to bet you $10 paypal that you are in the minority on your opinion. Create a poll and you'll see.
ahhaha dumbass hillbillies thinking their opinion is better because these are 'just elitist' NOBEL LAUREATES
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
I'm saying these scientists, no matter how highly decorated or well regardded, aare NOT backing Obama out of any real desire to do good "for the masses" but are in fact simply voting their interests.
Far too many in this thread think otherwise. Your post in fact supports my claim, these scientists back Obama for money. Same reason anyone backs a candidate.
Yes, their special interests...for the people!
Look, I could care less what their selfish reasons are as long as the result of their efforts benefits this country which it has a much greater chance of doing than the vast majority of special interest groups out there.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
I'd probably trust them over almost any other randomly selected cross-section of voters, but at the same time, you're probably getting at a bit of truth with your statement. People, including incredibly brilliant scientists, tend to vote in a manner that benefits them the most.
The part of me that likes to play devil's advocate also like to mull over the people in my life who I consider hyperintelligent and whether I would trust them to make political decisions for me and the rest of the country. It's a horrifying thought, as almost all of them are completely insane.
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
Look I agree. I'm all for R&D and science.
However, lets not spin this into something its not. Thats what many want to do with thise horseshit "The smartest in the world back Obama!". Well yeah, cause they want a JOB.
CrazyHelloDeli
Platinum Member
- Jun 24, 2001
- 2,854
- 0
- 0
I feel ashamed my response to this news was simply, "Hmmm, interesting", when many here seem so personally invested in its implications. Let me see if I can sum up both sides.
"OMG SCYENCE PEOPLE LOREATES ARE TO BEING INDORSE OBAMA!!!!!!11!!11 I AM INDORSE OBAMA SOS I MUST BE SMRTS LYKE THEM TU ROFL!!!!"
and
"OMG FAGGORTS SCYENCE LOREATES ARE DUMB LOLS!!!1!11!! THAY WANTS MONEYS FOR REESURCH IS ALLS SO THAY R L33TISTS FAGS!!!11!!"
"OMG SCYENCE PEOPLE LOREATES ARE TO BEING INDORSE OBAMA!!!!!!11!!11 I AM INDORSE OBAMA SOS I MUST BE SMRTS LYKE THEM TU ROFL!!!!"
and
"OMG FAGGORTS SCYENCE LOREATES ARE DUMB LOLS!!!1!11!! THAY WANTS MONEYS FOR REESURCH IS ALLS SO THAY R L33TISTS FAGS!!!11!!"
Who cares if there is a correlation? Can you even tell me how what I said applies to your previous post?
So, after all that, you're essentially agreeing that their endorsement isn't worth much of anything. If I needed someone to tell me who to vote for, then I probably shouldn't be voting in the first place. But that's exactly what these endorsements are designed to do - give the endorser more votes than he would otherwise have by swaying those without a mind of their own.
I'll take my anecdotal experience over your talking points any day, thank you.
It's interesting how some people here who claim to be for funding for scientific research all of a sudden tend to be against technical engineering projects, especially when it comes to large-scale NASA or military engineering projects that encompass dozens of fields. It would be nice if one day you guys could no longer be slaves to your candidate or party.
er, shouldn't you know how your reply applies to my post?
look, we both know the question that we're arguing in this situation: are liberals or conservatives more intellectual? i'll gladly agree that the fringe liberals apply little or no intellectual rigor to their views. however, i maintain that the higher average level of education of self-described liberals (as compared to conservatives) is a pretty good indicator that intellectualism is a left-leaning trait. that's why it matters that there's a correlation.
i assume you mean "endorsee"?
i choose who i choose based on independent research and opinions of those i respect. if 76 nobel laureates (ppl whose opinions i respect) lined up behind mccain, that would give me pause. i would revisit my research. i wouldn't dismiss their opinions out of hand because they don't support my candidate.
but yes, you're right - those endorsements do sway people without minds of their own. however, you're always going to have "people without minds of their own" and i'd rather have those people swayed by nobel laureates rather than Toby Keith or Alec Baldwin.
talking points? please. i'm an engineer. i saw the same stuff you saw in undergrad. i have anecdotes too. that doesn't change the fact that a middle-class asian family is much more likely to press its children to go into engineering/medicine/etc than is a middle-class american family.
I do know, but apparently it was a little over your head. At least, that's what I assume since you completely ducked it.Originally posted by: davestar
er, shouldn't you know how your reply applies to my post?
No one is arguing whether they are more intellectual. I simply stated that liberals feign intellectualism while eschewing it in practice by denigrating those who disagree with them on subjective matters. And I'm still waiting for any evidence that there is a correlation between education and political worldviews.
Stop assuming and read what I wrote. If I suggest that people should vote for candidate X, then I am hoping that people without a brain of their own will vote for candidate X, effectively increasing my number of votes. The natural result is that X also gets more votes. Try to keep up.
I'd rather those people not vote. And you are mistaken if you think I'm voting for McCain.
The fact that the kid is pressed into it is exactly why we are ahead. People here choose to go into engineering of their own free will. I did it because I'm one of the biggest dorks in the western hemisphere, not because my parents wanted me to do it. My Indian classmates are here because they took a test at the age of 16. That test told them their future, regardless of their personal drive or motivation.
Wow, way to generalize.
Did you interview all these classmates of yours personally?
Do you think these classmates' motivations are representative of all engineers in India?
Yes. I hung out with them on a regular basis. I have since graduated, so not recently.
No. However, they are representative of a great many.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter